ADUN SPEAKS | I refer to the Malaysiakini report 'Temple committee didn’t submit bid for new plot'.

Johor state MIC chairperson M Asojan said that the caretakers of the Hindu temple demolished in Johor had not complied with procedures to obtain an alternative plot of land for the temple to be relocated.

He claimed the caretakers of the Sri Sakti Sri Sinna Karuppar Aalayam temple were repeatedly told to submit the necessary paperwork but they had not done so.

Asojan further added that the state had offered an alternative plot of land and in order to obtain the plot, they needed to submit the necessary application.

At the same time, he said he couldn't really blame the temple committee as they might be unaware of the procedures involved.

Apparently, according to Asojan, the state government had gazetted a one-acre piece of land for non-Muslim places of worship.

Therefore, if the temple committee had wanted to relocate the temple, it was free to have done so but they had to submit the application first.

Asojan, who is the Gambir assemblyperson, stated that the Johor government has made two offers to the temple committee before the demolition took place a few days ago.

He also said he was confident that MIC could resolve the matter of the temple's relocation soon.

I am surprised that Asojan can come out and say all this now that the temple has been demolished.

Whether the state government offered an alternative plot of land before the demolition occurred remains to be seen.

However, when I visited the temple on Jan 13, I did not hear anything about land allocation by the state to the temple committee.

Asojan should be responsible when coming out with such statements.

Aware of an alternate plot?

I am not sure if the temple committee is even aware of the offer of an alternative land in the first place. If an alternative plot was not offered, then there is no point to say that the temple committee had not submitted the application yet.

How could the temple committee submit an application when they are not aware of alternative land being offered by the state government?

Did Asojan or his representatives approach the temple committee to offer the alternative land? Did he or his representatives advise the temple committee to submit an application to obtain the land?

I am not sure whether Asojan is telling the truth.

It serves no purpose for an alternative plot of land to be offered after the temple has been demolished.

The temple committee, when I approached them last week, said they were not aware of any alternative land offered by the state government.

In fact, after the demolition, the MIC visited them and promised that the temple would not be moved but remain in the existing place.

Asojan should not talk about 'two offers' when there is not even one offer on the table in the first place.

Nobody is accusing the Johor government of demolishing the temple as the deed was done by the landowner, after getting a court order.

But the point is the state government could have intervened to resolve the matter amicably. The state government, knowing that there was a court order for demolition, failed to ensure the temple was not torn down.

The MIC leaders, meanwhile, could have approached the temple committee before the demolition occurred but they did not.

Although it took more than one year for the implementation of the court order, the Johor government also did nothing in the intervening period.

It is good to hear that MIC is still committed to resolving the temple issue, although it is not clear whether the temple will still be located at the same site or not.

When MIC officials visited the temple on Jan 12, they promised that they would ensure that the temple stays put on its existing spot.

However, within two or three days, Asojan turned around to say that he now knows of an alternative plot of land.

I am sure the temple committee still maintains that they have a legal right to the present spot by virtue of an agreement between them and the previous landowner.

The current landowner was instrumental in getting the court order with no respect for the earlier agreement.

The earlier agreement is a powerful indicator that the temple has a legal right to its existence on the present land.

The state MIC leader should not confuse the people by saying one thing to the temple committee and another to the public.

This shows that he is unable to resolve the Masai temple issue once and for all.

Over the years, MIC, which claims to be the sole representative of the Indian community, has failed to stand up against those who have trampled on the political, social and religious rights of Indians.

P RAMASAMY is Penang Deputy Chief Minister II and Perai state assemblyperson.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.